FAIR hearing is natural
justice and fairness which impose obligations on persons who have power to make
decisions affecting other people to act fairly, in good faith, without bias and
to afford a person the opportunity to be heard and adequately state his case,
before a decision is made. In a nutshell, fair-hearing means the inherent right
of a person to a fair and just treatment in the hand of rulers, their agents
and other person.
The rights of a person
in legal proceedings or quasi-judicial proceedings consist of three main sets
or groups of rights; pre-trial rights, trial-rights and post-trial rights.
These three sets of rights are mainly and collectively protected by the
constitution. The two main requirements or ingredients of fair-hearing or natural
justice have been adequately incorporated into the Nigerian constitution by the
words “fair hearing” (audi-alteram partem), and “Impartiality” (nemo judex in
causa sua) which are inserted under section 36 of the 1999 constitution. The
remaining requirements of natural justice or fair-hearing are comprehensively
and adequately encapsulated in the rest of the fair-hearing clause of the
Nigerian constitution. Thus, fair-hearing is the modern name or term for
natural justice.
The rules of natural
justice or fair hearing are rudimentary, elementary and fundamental rules of
fairness. They are rules of procedure to ensure fairness and justice to parties
in a legal process or quasi-judical process. Audi alteram partem is a Latin
expression which means, hear the other party. It is a principle of natural
justice or fair-hearing and no one should be condemned unheard. For instance,
in Federal Civil Service Commission-V-LAOYE, the Supreme Court unanimously
frowned at the serious failure of persons exercising judicial and
quasi-judicial powers to hear the other side before condemning and passing
judgment: even though God knew what Adam and Eve had done, God himself who
created all things, who has all powers and who knows everything, gave Adam and
Eve the opportunity to state their defence before passing judgment. Therefore,
it can safely be said that the requirement that there should be natural justice
and fair-hearing in every matter and determination predates society. It is as
old as the creation of man. Natural justice or fair hearing is common sense and
proper.
The Latin phrase, nemo judex in causa sua
means that, no one should be a judge in his own cause. No one should be both a
prosecutor and a judge, in a matter in which he is a party, or has an interest
or stake. A judge should be uninterested and unbiased in the subject matter or
proceedings before him. This rule of natural justice or fair-hearing is meant
to prohibit interest and bias in a case on the part of a judge. Whenever, a
judge has interest or stake in a matter or where he is likely to be biased or
be accused of being biased, because of any interest or relationship, he should
decline from hearing the matter at hand, and let the chief judge or
administrative judge assign the matter to another judge for hearing. An
interest that will disqualify one, is probably an interest that makes one to
desire earnestly, that the matters should go in favour of a particular side or
that would likely occasion miscarriage of justice.
In the context of
administration of justice, to hear a matter means to listen to a matter
attentively, consider and decide it. For instance, in AKOH-V-ABUH, the Supreme
Court said that to hear a cause or matter means to hear and determine the cause
or matter. Delivery of the judgment in a matter is part of the hearing of the
cause or matter. A matter is in the process of being heard from its
commencement up to, and including the delivery of final judgment.
Fair hearing or fair
trial is a fundamental prerequisite for a just determination of disputes
between parties. The establishment of the likehood of bias on the part of a
judge or persons exercising judicial function in a proceeding for violation of
the legal maxim: nemo judex in causa sua which means: no one should be a judge
in his own matter. Partiality destroys the very root of a fair adjudication and
the administration of justice in any legal system anywhere in the world. The
test of bias, is whether there is a reasonable suspicion of bias, looked at
from the objective standpoint of a reasonable person and not from the
subjective stand point of an aggrieved party. Fair-hearing is not a technical
doctrine or principle, but a rule of substantial justice. To affect a judgment
and have it set aside or quashed for breach of fair hearing, it has to be shown
that: fair hearing was infringed, fair hearing was clearly threatened with
infringement of fair hearing; or there was a likely-hood of infringement of
fair-hearing. It is not sufficient that fair hearing was merely suspected to
have been infringed
Pre-trial rights
include right to life, subject to exceptions under section 33 of the 1999
constitution; right to dignity of human person (Section 34) and right to
personal liberty (Section 35). The trial rights of an accused person are mainly
contained in the right to fair hearing provision of the Nigerian constitution.
On the other hand, the post-trial rights of a person who has been convicted are
many. When a convict is appealing the decision of the court, his rights are
even more and cover the whole constitutional rights, that is, pre-trial rights,
trial rights and post-trial rights.
It must be said that
the principle of fair-hearing being a constitutional concept could only thrive
effectively in a democratic system of government. The citizens can adequately
assert their rights most efficaciously in a democracy. On the other hand it can
safely be submitted that fair-hearing, fair-trial or natural justice, whatever
name called also advances the elements and beauty of democracy in no measure,
since fair hearing itself is the bedrock of justice, and justice must not only
be done, but must be seen manifestly being done. Fair hearing pre-supposes that
where there is a right or wrong there must be a remedy, hence, the Latin words
that: ubi jus ibi remedium. The place of fair-hearing in a democracy in the
21st century cannot be short-changed, since both constitutional concepts
develop each other in a mature democracy
Or click on the blow file to download instead
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave your comment below